Anthropology's Ultimate Dichotomy: The Humanities and the Sciences.

So here is a part of one of the essays I wrote for my final. Most of it was pretty dense, but I thought some people might find bits of it entertaining so here is the Introduction and Conclusion.

 Archaeology has intrigued me since I was eight years old. Unsurprisingly this has led me into the wider field of Anthropology, it seemed the perfect fit for me because of how it combines the sciences and humanities. My father is a research physicist, thus it is unsurprising that I grew up with strong scientific modes of thought. In high school I took several math and science classes which I enjoyed but I also excelled in art, history, and literature. There was always underlying tension between the recognized value of the sciences versus the humanities. As I study Anthropology I have found this same underlying tension. Claude Levi-Strauss said that “Anthropology is, with music and mathematics, one of the few true vocations; and the anthropologist may become aware of it within himself before ever he has been taught it.” It is intriguing that he chose to mention both music and mathematics. These two disciplines are often viewed as completely opposite or even incompatible, which is just one line drawn in the sand that separates the humanities and the sciences. The question then, is whether Anthropology should be considered a hard science, or part of the humanities.
This conflict is deeply ingrained in Western culture, and anthropology as a child of the west (Pandian 13) is inexorably entrenched as well... The more I come to understand these dichotomies the more I see that they are more or less divided along the same lines as the sciences and humanities...

 Though there are a wide range of dichotomies in anthropology the one between the humanities and the sciences appears to be overarching. The paradigms inherent in these disciplines lead to, or at least encompass, the other debates. C. P. Snow in his article The Two Cultures addresses the almost impenetrable wall that has been built between the sciences and humanities, and although he recognizes the oversimplification of limiting it to two, he also explains that by doing so, it addresses the problem in a more direct fashion (Snow, 9). Hence, I have followed Snow in dividing anthropology into two camps. These two paradigms are considered incommensurable by some. This divisiveness threatens the effectiveness of anthropology as a whole. On the other hand Lett argues that science and the humanities can be complementary, and anthropology is a “humanistic science” (Lett 121). To be holistic, each individual anthropologist does not need to be an expert on every aspect of the field, indeed that would be impossible. Instead, to achieve holism it is necessary for Archaeologists, Linguists, Cultural, and Biological anthropologists from all different paradigms need to stop “crash[ing] in the night” (Harris). Communication between these groups is what we should work towards. In Robert Frost's poem, The Mending Wall, he writes of two farmers repairing a stone wall and their conversation about the need for the wall. “He is all pine and I am apple orchard./ My apple trees will never get across/ And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him./ He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.” Although there is no logical reason for a wall, the one farmer insists repeatedly that “Good fences make good neighbors.” Perhaps, this is an attainable solution for anthropology. If the line is left drawn between the sciences and the humanities, then it can make good neighbours between the “Two Cultures”.
As I began to draft this paper I wanted to portray both sides fairly, not belittling science or the humanities. During the process I noticed myself almost unconsciously using words and phrases that reflected a stronger connection to the scientific paradigm. At first I fought against these tendencies because I felt that if I chose one side I would be unfair to the other. As I continued however, I decided that it is not wrong to choose a side, in fact therein lies the power. Excepting that the questions I ask and my way of looking at the world fits within the science of culture, gives me leeway to pursue the questions that can be answered by such a paradigm. Understanding the strengths of the humanities is helpful and reveals possible weaknesses of bias, but ultimately accepting my own scientific paradigm opens up the questions and answers that come with the rest of the baggage.  

(I warned you it was dense)